Clinton Forgets That Strength Means Peace

June 20, 1993|By HERBERT H. BATEMAN Guest Columnist

Someone very wise once observed that the more things change, the more they stay the same. While the reality of that statement can be measured in degrees, its fundamental truth is indisputable. Today, as in almost every decade since the early 1900s, the United States is shrinking its national defense capabilities in the belief that permanent peace has broken out once again. Will we find ourselves scrambling to rebuild and rearm as the century turns?

Although he says he is committed to maintaining a military force appropriate to deal with any future crisis, President Clinton's current proposal to eviscerate our national defense. As we move toward the beginning of the 21st century, we face the possibility that our strength and technological power, so evident during operation Desert Storm, will be supplanted by real and perceived weakness. This invites mischief when we should be detering it.

Clinton has proposed defense budget reductions of up to $127 billion between 1994 and 1998. His plan goes far beyond that put forward last year by President Bush, and exceeds event that which the Congress approved for the same five years. This scale of reductions will have very serious implications in terms of the ability of the United States to project meaningful military power abroad in response to crises.

During the 1994 to 1998 time frame, spending for domestic programs will be cut by only $7 billion out of an estimated total of $8 trillion in domestic spending.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Clinton defense plan is that it seems to be a "stealth" plan. The president and Secretary of Defense Les Aspin either do not know, or simply are not saying, where or how the impacts of these cuts will land on the Department of Defense, the defense industry and the national economy.

It is as if the president has said to the secretary of defense, "Here's my bottom line on defense spending ... you figure out how to justify it and make it work." Congress is in the dark and the American people are in the dark. The administration is asking Congress to consider its budget proposal now, but will not share its force level and strategic plans until next fall, nor reveal its financing plans until the winter of 1994.

This approach is absolutely wrongheaded and dangerous. It should be the policy of the United States to take a "capability-based" approach to defense budgeting in order to maintain a force of sufficient size, strength and flexibility to deter or defeat the whole range of potential threats.

In response to global changes and budgetary constraints after the fall of the Soviet empire, the Bush administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had formulated a prudent plan for reducing and restructuring the armed forces. The military structure envisioned under this plan was known as the "Base Force." The Base Force would have reduced the military by 25 percent to 30 percent, including cutting active duty and strength from 2.1 million to 1.6 million, reducing Army divisions from 28 to 18 (active and reserve), Air Force fighter wings from 36 to 26, and the size of the fleet from 546 ships to 450. This level of defense capabilities was what was recommended before Somolia, the Balkan threat to peace and increased tension on the Korean peninsula.

The Clinton administration is sending signals that it anticipates some of its proposed massive cuts will come in the form of reduced pay and benefits for the men and women of the armed services, who already have seen their pay decrease by 11.7 percent since 1982. Reducing defense spending by penalizing the men and women who serve on the front lines will undermine the all-volunteer force that was the backbone of our revitalized defense capability.

It is more likely that we will see large and perilous manpower reductions instead. Some experts have projected a reduction of as much as 40 percent to 45 percent from the force levels we had during Desert Storm would be necessary to meet President Clinton's bottom line. If our total military manpower is reduced to a million or 1.2 million, economists have suggested that civilian defense industry employment would suffer at least a 20 percent larger reduction.

We face serious deficiencies in our airlift and marine capabilities and we are building ships at so sluggish a rate that we can only sustain a 200-ship Navy. We lack plans to manage any future risks we may face from long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

If these estimates are even remotely accurate, it means the United States may soon be unable to fulfill its commitments in Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific and Europe.